See also: IRC log
Last week minutes: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/03/20-ws-addr-minutes.html
No objection
Resolution: minutes accepted
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] 2006-03-03: Hugo Haas to draft mapping to CM of UsingAddressing. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/27-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] 2006-03-20: Editors to Review wsdl document for RFC2119 usage by 2006-03-27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/27-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
Marc: every place with may, must, should comply with RFC2119
Bob: lc120, lc121, lc122 are new
issues
... will go through those today
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Mar/0075.html Changes for LC112 resolution
"I had a doubt about the resolution for {anonymous required}" -- Hugo
-> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-wsdl.html?rev=1.43&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#wsdl20_usingaddressing proposed changes for LC112
Jonathan: looks fine to me.
Bob: objection to accept the text?
Resolution: text from Hugo regarding LC112 is accepted
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to remove editorial note in section 3.1.1. text from Hugo is accepted. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/27-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]
Topic: lc 120
<bob> Here are a few editorial comments on the Last Call Working Draft
<bob> Section 1:" (for backwards compatibility" is missing a closing bracket
<bob> Section 4.2.3: "the property value is the value of the wsaw:action
<bob> attribute" should be wsaw:Action
<bob> Section 4.2.4: "In the absence of the wsa:Action attribute" should be
<bob> wsaw:Action
<bob> Example 4.1 title uses wsaw:Action and titles for 4.2, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9 use
<bob> wsa:Action. All examples show similar things. Both wsa:Action and
<bob> wsaw:Action make sense in this context but it should be consistent.
<bob> David
Bob: objection to accept those changes?
Resolution: accepted the proposed changes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2006Mar/0005.html
Anish: so, do we change it to wsaw:Action, or do we leave it as wsa:Action?
Marc: I think it should be wsa:Action in the examples
<GlenD> +1 to Marc
Marc: we only change the first one in first example of 4.1. Others are fine.
Resolution: change title in example 4.1 to use wsa:Action
<scribe> ACTION: editors will go through section 4 and modify it to be consistent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/27-ws-addr-minutes.html#action04]
Bob: I'll mark the issue as closed with editorial pending
<scribe> closed following http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Mar/0081.html
original issue was at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Mar/0078.html
Resolution: lc 121 is closed and incorporated
<bob> EDITORIAL SUGGESTION:
<bob> Section 2.1
<bob> Do we need to specify cardinality for InterfaceName, ServiceName and
<bob> EndpointName - i.e. to ensure that there are never multiple ones
<bob> specified?
<bob> Section 2.2
<bob> As above but with embedded WSDL definitions - do we need to specify max
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Mar/0079.html Specifying cardinality of WSDL Metadata
<bob> 1?
Katy: I always assumed that the interface name only occured once in an EPR, also for service name, or endpoit name but we don't specify that anywhere
Jonathan: I can imagine a bunch of WSDL that describe the same service with different names (translation, ...)
<anish> would that belong in the same EPR, jonathan?
Jonathan: right now, we're not restricting to one, and don't have a use case for it. But can't imagine why we should restrict.
<anish> +1 to bob
Bob: then it should be clear in
the document that it is not limited
... objection to specify the cardinality to 0.. ?
<anish> xml:lang ?
Tony: if we support the use of multiple languages, then it should useful to specify the language on them as well to support the local
Jonathan: could be done through extensibility
Bob: seems a WSDL issue in general?
Marc: an obvious use case is to include a WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 reference
Katy: how would you know which one reference which anyway?
Marc: you'll need to dereference the service
Glen: you should encapsulate them
into an element or restrict the cardinality to one
... if we restrict to one, people can use extensibility
anyway
Katy: you'll need to own client to handle the case then
Glen: that would be the case
anyway. you need to have some out-of-band mechanism to
understand the meaning anyway
... if we're going to allow several, let's make the syntax
clear, or we should restrict to one
... we would need an element to do the paring between the
service name and the interface name
Katy: maybe the issue is how often would people use this?
Bob: so restrict to one?
Katy: if we restrict to one, it would be one of each, right?
Marc: they are combinable indeed
Katy: can you specify an interface and embed some WSDL?
Glen: as long as the interface matches the WSDL, sure.
Jonathan: do we say that in the spec?
Katy: [quoting text] yes, it's covered.
Bob: objection to restrict the cardinality to one?
Resolution: lc 122 closed. cardinality for ServiceName, InterfaceName, EndpointName limited to one.
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to limited cardinality for ServiceName, InterfaceName, EndpointName [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/27-ws-addr-minutes.html#action05]
Bob: how many more issues should we expect?
Glen: don't think you'll get some from us.
Jonathan: expecting to get some this week. A couple of them are interesting.
Bob: we'll schedule next week
call for one hour only as well
... we'll be in summer time next week in the US.
... we'll keep it 4pm US/Eastern
... we also need to start looking for implementations
Glen: and a test suite
Bob: we'll want to progress this
to CR fast.
... the PR review for Core and SOAP Binding is ongoing.
Philippe: no objection so far I think
Paul: I started a discussion
thread on the list about next steps.
... what does it mean, etc.